Public Petitions Committee, 21 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 21, 2000

Official Report 173KB pdf

---

New Petitions

The first item is new petitions. Petitions PE292, PE293 and PE294 call on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the recommendations made in the most recent public inquiry on the designation of land for housing at Briery Bank, Haddington and to initiate a new, fully independent public inquiry.

We have had letters in support of PE294 from Haddington and District Amenity Society and from a distinguished group, including the Scottish Civic Trust, the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, Haddington history society, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, Charles McKean, professor of architectural history at the University of Dundee, Rev Clifford Hughes of St Mary's parish church in Haddington, the Duchess of Hamilton and Margery Clinton.

We have been handed a plate, which shows St Mary's church and Briery Bank. It is not a gift from the petitioners but should give members of the committee some idea of the area. I invite Mr William Watson, Mr Ian Arnott and Mr Clive Fairweather to speak in support of the petitions.

I am here today as a community councillor and as a parent of a child at Haddington Infant School. The other signatories of the human rights petition are four activists representing the area most directly affected, and Fraser Spowage, who was the previous provost of Haddington. Fraser led the campaign against the development 10 years ago.

Members may remember that they were kind enough to support petitions PE181 and PE182, which were concerned with traffic congestion and pedestrian danger at Haddington Infant School. The proposed housing at Briery Bank, together with housing at a nearby site, will generate a considerable increase in the number of car journeys past the infant school each morning. That increase in traffic will completely overwhelm the minor improvements to safety achieved as a result of the two previous petitions.

Petition PE293 focuses on the procedures adopted by the local council and the Scottish Executive. We are concerned that those procedures have been unable to give the objections raised by the community a fair hearing. We are shocked that East Lothian Council has not been obliged to inquire into the objections. The committee should also note that, in our opinion, the Executive's structure plan for housing in East Lothian directly contradicts the Executive's policy of reducing congestion in Edinburgh and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I am chairman of Haddington and District Amenity Society. Our petition asks the Scottish Parliament to recognise that St Mary's church and its setting are a national asset and that anything that adversely affects that asset is a matter of national interest. The church's importance is confirmed in "The Buildings of Scotland", which brackets it and its setting with St Giles cathedral because of their significance in Scotland's history and architecture.

The local plan inquiry reporter and East Lothian Council are prepared to desecrate this greenfield site. Having handed it to a developer, the reporter suggested safeguards to limit the damage. Those are inadequate, because they fail to address problems of access, traffic and loss of amenity. Such safeguards are merely palliative; they are akin to cosmetic surgery to treat the scars following an operation that has gone wrong due to misdiagnosis. It is self-evident that no development on the site—regardless of quality—can preserve or enhance the conservation area. The public seem intuitively to have understood the argument that if you corrupt the setting, you corrupt the jewel. The strength of numbers—around 1,200—who have made their dissatisfaction known has been ignored by East Lothian Council. There has been no attempt at communication with the public, no consultation, no co-operation and no explanation of the apparent collapse of the council's previous commitment to the protection of the area.

HADAS has been especially concerned at instances of what appears to be misinformation circulating in the council during the decision-making process. We have asked publicly for clarification, but have had no response. We therefore first ask the Scottish Parliament to direct East Lothian Council that the local plan should, in dealing with a building and setting of national significance, follow national planning policy, which should not be changed in respect of Briery Bank.

Secondly, we ask the Parliament to direct East Lothian Council that no decision on changing the local plan should be taken before all relevant information on traffic, flooding, drainage and any other matter affecting the site is available. Finally, we ask the Parliament to investigate whether the public interest has been properly served.

I am chairman of the Sidegate Residents Association. I have given some maps to the clerks, which, in addition to the plate, might help—although the plate is more elegant.

There are about 200 residents in the Sidegate, which is about 300 yards from Briery Bank on the only main route to the site proposed for development. In the past few years, despite the fact that there has been no development, there has been a major increase in traffic in the Sidegate. Our main concern is that accidents and fatalities are becoming a distinct possibility. I am not sure that the council is as focused on that as we are. We believe that traffic is bound to increase if the project at Briery Bank goes ahead.

I ask the committee to consider whether a public inquiry would be appropriate in the circumstances, as the plan is fundamentally flawed without proper traffic information about Haddington as a whole and the Sidegate in particular.

I have one further request. Since we submitted our petition, we have received a letter stating that the plan will be adopted on 11 December. I ask the committee whether it is within its powers to have that date postponed and whether, in the interim, a survey on traffic in the Sidegate and Haddington could be carried out in which the rest of the residents in the Sidegate can participate. Surely, after 10 years, a wee delay would do no harm. Indeed, it may, in the long run, save the life of a child or old-age pensioner.

You referred to a letter that says that the plan will be adopted on 11 December. Would the Scottish Executive give the approval?

As I understand it, it would be the local council.

But the proposal is before the Scottish Executive minister for consideration.

It would seem so.

So it is not finalised yet.

No.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. I have two questions. First, have you involved your local MSP, John Home Robertson?

HADAS has involved him. He asked for information on the course of action that we were taking and we sent him a brief résumé of the facts. He also received some 300 representations from members of the public.

Have you met John Home Robertson?

Yes, I have.

To discuss this issue?

Yes.

Obviously, the planning authority is obliged to follow procedures. Do you feel that it has not done so at any point?

A standard form was sent out, inviting anyone who had any objections to make representations to the council. That form indicated that, if the local authority received any new objections, it would be obliged to hold a public inquiry. We believe that the council received new objections, but no public inquiry has been proposed. The council has therefore not followed the correct procedure.

Your submission states that there has been a case in Glasgow in which planning issues have been included in the terms of an independent tribunal under article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Do you feel that that is relevant to this case?

Yes. The ECHR is an interesting, developing beast in relation to a whole set of procedures. The case in Glasgow appears to show firmly that the ECHR applies to planning matters.

I must make everyone aware of the fact that neither as a committee nor as a Parliament do we have powers to extend the statutory period of 28 days during which representations can be made to Executive ministers on this plan. However, we can ensure that the representations that you make to us are considered by ministers within those 28 days.

You maintain that there has been no consultation, explanation or clarification. Are you content to make those assertions?

At the time of the submission of objections to modification of the local plan—which was the last advertised opportunity for objections to be received—we suggested to the authority that, if the objections did not oblige it to hold a planning inquiry, a hearing such as referred to in the code of practice for local planning inquiries should be held, as it would provide a forum for those members of the public who had objected at least to hear an explanation of the council's actions. Nothing happened.

In the papers that have been circulated to committee members, you seem to say that the authority has agreed reluctantly to the reporter's proposal. Can you explain why that is? In the past, the local authority has taken your side and opposed development on this site. Why has it changed its mind?

That is one of the aspects of the case on which we would welcome some clarification. The previous local plan inquiry lasted for seven months and was conducted at some cost to the local authority. I imagine that the council has accepted the reporter's recommendation—which it was free not to accept, as the recommendation is not statutory—because it envisaged that, if it did not, a further, expensive public inquiry would be necessary.

If it had refused to accept the reporter's recommendation, would the developer have been able to appeal?

The developer would have submitted an application, which I presume the council would have refused on the ground of its being contrary to the local plan. The developer would then have been free to appeal and, in his appeal, he would have been able to quote the reporter's findings. That situation has arisen in the past and has not always been indefensible.

There seems to have been no rationalisation of why the new reporter's findings are different from those of the reporter 10 years ago. Was any explanation given of the difference in the reporters' findings?

No.

No.

If anything, the traffic congestion is worse than it was 10 years ago.

The circumstances are worse than they were, and the reporter was concerned 10 years ago.

No explanation was offered of why the decision was different this time. Reference has also been made to a traffic assessment plan that will be carried out in the area. Does that reassure you?

Conducting a traffic survey sounds to me rather like putting the cart before the horse. The indications are that there will be a survey but, as a resident, I would be surprised if that survey finds what the residents feel—that the traffic has increased enormously. That may sound cynical, but it seems as though there has been a build-up of activity and I would be surprised if the impetus was to cease. That is why I request that the Sidegate residents association be allowed to take part in the survey. I see no reason why we should not do so; the process should be transparent and we should be able to contribute to it.

I believe—although this is hearsay—that traffic surveys have been conducted at favourable times of the year, such as holidays. We would therefore like to have some say in when the survey went ahead.

One of the principles behind this Parliament is that it should be open and accountable. That should apply to transport assessments as well, which are carried out on behalf of the Parliament.

The plate that the petitioners have brought for the committee has a beautiful view on it. Were historical and natural heritage organisations consulted when objections to the plan were submitted to the council? If so, did they submit objections?

I cannot answer that. In her findings, the reporter did not cite any such organisations as having submitted objections. Briery Bank had been defended successfully over 10 years, on two occasions, by a council that acted contrary to its own planners. At the time of the public local inquiry, the matter was felt to be in safe hands and so was not paid the attention that, given subsequent events, it should have been.

Are you aware of an organisation called Planning Aid for Scotland? Have you approached that organisation?

I am aware of it, but we have not approached it yet.

That might be a good idea.

Yes, I agree.

Thanks very much for answering our questions so well. We now proceed to consideration of the petitions.

The notes for committee members make it clear that we do not have the power or right to intervene in the development of local plans. In view of the fact that this local plan is currently before the ministers for the statutory period of 28 days during which representations can be made to them, it seems appropriate for the petitions to be passed quickly to the Executive and for us to request that they be taken into account when the minister responsible reaches a decision on whether to intervene.

Perhaps we should note the fact that this third planning decision appears to be out of step with the previous two.

I support that.

We should also make the Official Report of this meeting available to the minister. That will allow the points made by the petitioners today to be taken into account. However, I do not know when the Official Report will be available.

We should send the material to the minister as quickly as possible, to allow the minister the maximum amount of time in which to consider the matter.

We will send the petitions to the minister tomorrow; the Official Report might take longer.

The planning decision seems to fly in the face of the policy of keeping open spaces in and around town centres. It would be a shame to lose that open space.

It would be fair to say that committee members are sympathetic to the petitioners. We should ask the minister to take that into consideration.

I suggest that a copy of the correspondence go to John Home Robertson as well, as he is the local MSP.

Are those proposals agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE295, from Mr Alex Murray, on behalf of the Silverknowes residents action group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the City of Edinburgh Council to review its plans for the relocation of the football pitch in Silverknowes Green and to ensure that the future planning applications allow sufficient opportunities for interested parties to voice their concern. I welcome Mr Murray to the committee and ask him to make his statement.

I have provided a plan of the area to the committee. I would appreciate it if members would have a look at it before I speak.

The plan was received today and is being handed out now. Some photographs were also received.

I will refer to them later.

I speak on behalf of the residents of Silverknowes View, Silverknowes Green and the surrounding area. Our petition relates to planning procedures and the right of appeal. We feel greatly aggrieved that reasonable, law-abiding, undemanding, tax-paying citizens have an unacceptable situation imposed on them without the right of appeal. We maintain that we were not properly informed or consulted during the planning process. A council-backed development on council land has received planning permission from the council's planning committee and will be developed by the council. All that has been done in the interests of the local community. We maintain that we are part of that community and that we have not had a fair and impartial hearing.

The local plan, which was adopted in 1992, defines the area involved as a significant area of public open space on which no development is allowed. A football pitch, which was located on the Muirhouse side of the land, was relocated close to Silverknowes without notification. We have since been regularly subjected to foul language, shouting and people urinating in public against the fences of our properties.

Since October 1997, three planning applications have been approved, resulting in plans for housing and a park for the community. The football pitch will be moved even closer to us. Approval was subject to consultation with all local communities. A consultation meeting was advertised in Muirhouse Library, Silverknowes Primary School and on the lamp posts surrounding the park. However, our local library is in Blackhall, our local school is Davidson's Mains Primary School and we have no direct access to the park. Therefore, we did not attend the meeting and were not consulted, which means that the conditions attached to the planning approval were contravened.

The second notice to neighbours clearly showed a football pitch, but the notice was not issued to us. The third notice to neighbours, which we received, did not mention a football pitch or a 40 ft high fence. When we discovered the detail, we tried to have the matter removed from the planning committee agenda until we had been properly consulted. We have since proposed that an existing pitch in Silverknowes Primary School be retained. The pitch is recognised by sportscotland as a substantial playing field of good quality that is conveniently located. The school and field will be sold for housing development.

I ask members to take time, please, to look at the four photographs. Photograph A shows the level, well-drained playing field in the school grounds. Photograph B shows the area of the intended football pitch, close to our properties. You can see the type of soil on which it is planned to put the pitch. Photograph C shows the 40 ft fence and the height in relation to our two-storey properties. The effect does not include that of any netting that will be erected. Photograph D shows the impact of the fence from our rear gardens. Again, the netting is not included.

To the council, we have pleaded article 6 of the European convention on human rights, on a fair and impartial hearing, and article 8, on the individual's right to peaceful enjoyment of assets. We have not yet received a response. We feel that the smart movers—the experienced players in the planning game—have succeeded at the expense of the innocents who do not know the law. We have discovered that we do not have the right to speak at the planning committee, that we have no right of appeal, that no independent authority ensures fair play during the planning process and that planning permission, once granted, is difficult to reverse.

We ask the Parliament to protect its citizens, allowing us—and no doubt many others in similar situations throughout Scotland—the freedom to enjoy our homes and gardens peacefully. We believe that the Parliament has it in its power to correct the situation.

Will you elaborate a bit on the ways in which you have approached the council and any responses that you have received from it?

When the first notice to neighbours was distributed, many of us objected. The notice informed us of a housing development and a reallocation of open space. There was no mention of the football pitch. At that time, our objections related to the lack of detail about the housing, which appeared to be right up against our boundary fences. We asked questions about the orientation, density, height and type of housing that would be built. The response was that it would be low-rise, low-density, low-cost private housing.

At its meeting, the planning committee had to take notice of the local councillor's requirement that the existing football pitch be retained and I think that sportscotland said that it would not like to lose a football pitch. We were unaware that the proposals were being made to the planning committee, so we had no opportunity to raise objections. Outline planning permission was granted, but decisions on the retention of the full-size football pitch and consultation with all local communities were reserved.

Have you requested a meeting with the leader of the City of Edinburgh Council? Have you involved a local councillor?

We have involved many people so far. As soon as we realised that the third application would succeed and that we could not object, we set up a public meeting. Margaret Smith, who is not here today, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, who is one of our list MSPs, and Councillor Lowrie all attended the meeting. If Margaret Smith were here, she would vouch for the number that attended. We feel that if we had been invited to the consultative meeting, the turnout would have been the same and we would have had the opportunity to raise our objections to the location of the pitch. However, we were not given that opportunity.

One of the reasons why we are here today is that Margaret Smith recommended that we send a petition. We collected the names and submitted that petition. Councillor Lowrie is a member of our action group and gives us advice about council procedure and some information about progress.

You say that a public meeting was called. Have you sought a meeting with the leader of the City of Edinburgh Council?

No, not with the leader, but we tried to communicate with the convener of the planning committee. We delivered letters by hand, and I sent a fax, to try to get the item removed from the agenda until we had been consulted. Those requests were all turned down.

I have been in communication with the chief executive, trying to persuade him that proper procedure was not followed. On behalf of the action group, I have had a meeting with the head of planning, the acting head of leisure and recreation and a representative from housing development who has been involved in the project from its early days. At that lengthy meeting, I explained, as I have explained to you, the shortcomings in the procedure that was followed.

We have since had letters back from those officials saying that they feel that the council followed correct procedure. We have had a letter from the chief executive saying that, having investigated the matter internally, he feels that the council followed proper procedure. We have communicated with Steve Cardownie, who is the executive member for leisure and culture. He wrote back, in what now appears to be the standard letter, to say that he is convinced that the council followed proper procedure.

We have invited all those people down to have a look at the site so that they can see it from our point of view, but none has yet accepted. The only acceptance that we have had has been from Robin Harper MSP. Subject to his schedule, we hope to have a visit from him in the next few weeks.

I want to be sure that I have understood correctly. When you were first notified of this development, you were told that it was to be for housing.

That is correct.

So when you objected to the development, you were objecting to a housing development. The council subsequently changed the plans and the area was designated not for housing but for a football pitch. Were you given an opportunity to object at that stage?

No, and that is my point. Initially, we objected because of the lack of detail about the housing: we did not want tower blocks right at the boundaries of our properties. As I have said, we understand that sportscotland made representations to say that it did not want to lose another football pitch, and we understand that the local councillor, Lesley Hinds, made representations in the council that sportscotland wanted to retain the pitch. As a result of that, the outline planning permission included, among other things, the provision of a full-sized football pitch, subject to the developers consulting all the local communities.

Which you maintain that they did not adequately do.

They maintain that they did, but they did not tell us about the meeting on the issue. They advertised it in areas that we do not frequent. Silverknowes is quite an extensive area. Silverknowes Primary School serves the north end, but we are at the south end and our children go to Davidson's Mains Primary School. The Muirhouse library is in the centre of Muirhouse but the most accessible library for us is in Blackhall. From Silverknowes, we do not have access to the open space concerned, so we would not see any notices on lamp posts.

Do you feel that an attempt has been made to deceive you?

We would have to use the word "allegedly", but yes, we do feel that. We feel that we have been not outmanoeuvred but cheated, in that we have not had proper consultation or information. In the third notice given to people in the neighbouring houses, the development was described as a park for the community. Accompanying that notice was a diagram showing a blank area. There was no mention of the pitch being within 25 or 35 feet of properties. Please correct me if I am wrong now that we have gone metric, but those who play football will know that 35 ft is just under the distance from the penalty spot to the goal line.

It is a long time since I went metric or played football.

Is it 12 yards? I cannot remember.

I notice in your papers that you are considering an application to the local authority ombudsman about maladministration on the part of the council. Are you going to do that?

Again, you can correct me if I am wrong when I say that the ombudsman can investigate the planning approval but cannot change it. We submitted all the necessary papers up to July, which was about the time that the petition was originally completed and signed. The ombudsman wanted to close the file because we had not gone through the council's proper complaints procedure. We had complained to just about everybody on the council to whom we thought we could complain. We received replies in which they all said that proper procedure had been observed.

We delayed taking the matter further with the ombudsman, and he or she was aware of that. We delayed submitting this petition to allow the council to consider our alternative proposal of retaining what is a perfectly good, level, well-drained playing field. As members can see from the photograph, there is no water lying on the pitch, even after lengthy periods of rain.

Silverknowes Primary School and the pitch have to be sold. They are no longer required. The proceeds of the sale will go towards a new primary school in Muirhouse, which will replace more than two or three schools in the area. Those schools have playing facilities, which will be open for community use. We maintain that there is no need for another football pitch. There are many football pitches all around Silverknowes. We tried to put that case to the council's recreation committee. It listened, but it did not do anything.

Did you say that you were not given the right to speak before the council's planning committee?

No, I said that we understand that we do not have the right to speak. We can speak by invitation.

Which was not extended to you.

If we had been aware that a local councillor was going to support the retention of the football pitch, we would have presented a case against that.

But no forward notice of the matter was to be raised at that committee?

Indeed not.

You understand that the Parliament cannot intervene in local democratic planning decisions. That is, in a sense, why councils are elected. We can discuss procedures, but the individual decisions of any council are a matter for its elected members, who will be held to account by the voters when the time comes.

Yes, but the Parliament surely has some say in the procedure and in the application of law. In this case, we are saying that the law should be changed: we should have a right of appeal. My understanding is—again, you will have to correct me if I am wrong, as we are lay people with respect to the law—that when planning approval has been granted, virtually the only way of reversing or changing that is through a judicial review.

There is no right of appeal. A number of petitions have been referred from this committee to the Transport and the Environment Committee, dealing with the specific problem that people do not have the right of appeal against such decisions. I know that the Transport and the Environment Committee is considering that. We may decide to refer this petition to that committee as well, but I reiterate that we cannot interfere with the council's actual decision. We can only talk about the procedures and processes. Otherwise, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities themselves will get irate.

Yes, but we are also entitled to get angry because we were not consulted.

I agree.

The whole point is that the decision was not democratic. To reiterate what I said earlier, this is a council-backed development on council land, which has received planning permission from the council's planning committee. It will be developed by the council.

For council gain.

What is fair and impartial about that? Does the Human Rights Act 1998 have any application in this area?

We cannot make a judgment on that.

I concur with the convener, but you might want to explore this with the local government ombudsman, whose task it is to ensure that all the due processes and procedures have been observed. I am not sure whether you have thought about doing that.

We did explore it with the ombudsman.

John McAllion is absolutely right: it is our task to change the legislation, to investigate any guidelines that the Minister for Finance and Local Government needs to consider and to investigate any pertinent statutory instruments.

The rights of smaller people in the community, so to speak, to have a line of appeal against planning decisions form one of the most frequent subjects of the petitions that the Transport and the Environment Committee has received from us. Developers have a right of appeal. There seems to be an imbalance in society, and I know that the Transport and the Environment Committee will consider that in due course.

If the ombudsman finds that proper procedure has not been followed in this case, we still have no means of getting the football pitch moved. I question the legality of the decision. Again, we are left without a leg to stand on.

Thank you very much for a comprehensive presentation. There are no more questions.

We will now discuss how to handle the petition. As I said, it is not within our remit to investigate decisions that have been made by elected councils such as the City of Edinburgh Council. We cannot take any further action in relation to that aspect of the petition.

In relation to the other issues that have been raised, as I said, we have passed several similar petitions that have called for changes in the planning system to the Transport and the Environment Committee. It is suggested that the petition should be passed to that committee to be considered with those previous petitions.

Do members think that any other action might be possible?

The ECHR is increasingly going to come into play in those planning decisions. I understand that some councils offer individuals the right to speak and make representations at planning committees as a matter of right.

In the context of changing the legislation, if we decide to pass this petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, we should urge it to fully examine how ECHR issues relate to planning. If the committee does not do so, we will be forced to do so by court action.

In passing petition PE295 to the Transport and the Environment Committee, we could ask them to consider the implications of the ECHR for planning applications, especially in relation to the right of individuals to make representations to councils about planning decisions.

I wonder if we should write to the council to ask whether it is satisfied that it has complied with all procedures known to it and has complied with the ECHR. That would invite it to take a look at its own position.

As well as passing the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, we could also pass it to the City of Edinburgh Council to ask it to respond to the points made by the petitioners about the lack of consultation and the lack of the right to object to this planning decision. We would consider the replies when we get them.

The petitioners might want to contact Planning Aid for Scotland.

I have been advised to stress again—I think for legal reasons—that the committee recognises that it cannot intervene in the decisions of a democratically elected body such as the council. We are trying to help the petitioners by getting the council to explain its position.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The final new petition today is PE291 from Mr Alan Melville, on behalf of Napier Students Association, calling on the Scottish Parliament to implement the Cubie report in its entirety. I welcome Mr Melville to the committee.

For the information of members, we have received this—sorry, one of the members has to leave urgently. We will have to suspend the meeting for a few minutes; otherwise we would be inquorate.

Meeting adjourned.

On resuming—

I reconvene this meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. We are short-handed today, Mr Melville, as you can see.

I have noticed.

I welcome you again.

PE291 has been running on the international teledemocracy centre e-petitioner website for the past four and a half months. The centre has provided the committee with a very useful briefing on the background to the petition, which is not usually available with a petition. That highlights the useful way in which electronic petitions can be sent to this Parliament. I commend Napier Students Association on the way in which it has organised this—it is very good. It is now for you to make your case.

Thank you for inviting me to speak today. The petition before you calls on the Scottish Executive to implement in full the recommendations of the Independent Committee of Inquiry into Student Finance, which is popularly called the Cubie report, after the chairman of that committee, Mr Andrew Cubie.

Members will be aware that this is not the first petition to be placed before the committee on this subject. I am sure that you probably wonder why another petition is being made. There are two reasons. The first is that, as the convener mentioned, this petition is, as far as I know, the first of its kind—it is an online petition. People all over the globe have signed it. The figures about where the people who signed it come from are in the brief from the international teledemocracy centre.

The second reason is perhaps more pertinent. I was asked, on delivery of this petition, whether I believed that it still had relevance as the legislative process is in train and enabling bills are being passed. My answer was, and remains, simple. The process is not over simply because certain ministers seem to want it to be. This issue cannot be shelved; there are still students who do not have any money.

The previous petition that we sent to this body was sent to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, which decided that the matter had been discussed enough and filed it, since the matter was under discussion at the time. We do not believe that the issue has been discussed enough.

Every student representative body in the country, from individual student associations such as Napier to the Scottish ancient universities and the National Union of Students Scotland, has informed the Scottish Executive repeatedly that the proposals contained in the consultation document, "Scotland: A Learning Nation", were unsatisfactory, ill thought out, unfair and short-term. The Executive nevertheless continued to push forward what I consider to be an ill-conceived agenda.

I do not know how many times we have to drag the Executive, kicking and screaming, back to this issue. Andrew Cubie and his committee took account of the financial constraints of the Scottish Parliament. The Cubie report was costed at £62 million over the first year and £71 million thereafter. That is less than £15 per head of population. It is £20 million, a fiver a head, more than the current series of initiatives and grabs at headlines that are currently being put forward. It is not too much to ask that, for once, the Scottish Parliament puts the long-term welfare of the nation above politics, above the mandarins from the Treasury's budgetary constraints and above the ideological differences of members of committees.

The Executive appears to consistently ignore the people that it represents. The Cubie report has the backing of all the students, universities, lecturers, business and the thousands of ordinary people with whom the Cubie inquiry consulted. An ICM poll for The Scotsman showed that 80 per cent of the public backed Cubie. However, the Parliament has never been asked whether it supports the Cubie report. I suggest that that question needs to be put.

I recommend that this committee, if it has the power to do so, place the Cubie report before Parliament so that we can find out its views. That is all that I have to say.

Thank you very much. Members may now question the witness.

I have no questions.

I do not have any questions either. The petitioner has made a good and full presentation of his case, to which I am entirely sympathetic.

There is considerable cross-party sympathy for the points that the petitioner made.

You mentioned that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee—

The committee received an earlier petition from Napier Students Association.

It was petition PE78. The committee decided to ask the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to consider the points made in the petition when it came to consider the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

We were able to find out only that the petition had been discussed.

We have been informed that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee agreed at its meeting on 23 February to consider the issues that are raised in the petition when it examined student finance—when it considered the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Bill. The bill was before the committee, but it had to be withdrawn.

I am aware of that.

The petition was submitted before the weekend announcement of Wendy Alexander's munificence to students. Had you known about that announcement, would it have had any material bearing on your petition?

No. The minister said that universities would receive £750 per place to fund 12,000 places for students from poorer backgrounds. The total for that is £9 million. The Executive's prior proposals cost £50 million. That produces a total of £59 million. We are talking about a difference of £3 million between the cost of implementing the Cubie report in full and the amount the Scottish Executive appears willing to spend. Cubie was costed and designed as a complete package.

The money the minister has announced will go to universities, not to students. Given the current position of student finance, I do not believe that students from poorer backgrounds will take up the 12,000 places for which provision has been made.

Do you believe that Cubie's recommendation that fees should be paid back only once students have reached an income threshold of £25,000 is correct?

I think that it is reasonable. When a graduate is earning £25,000, it is obvious that they have benefited from their degree. It is only reasonable for them to repay some of that benefit. As members are no doubt aware, a threshold of £10,000 is not very popular with student bodies. I cannot think of anybody whom I know, apart from me, who earns less than £10,000 a year. Even my income is below the threshold by only £100 or so. Everybody would have to pay back the £2,000. That amounts to a graduate tax rather than a graduate endowment.

The Cubie report also recommended that the graduate endowment scheme be set up as a charitable foundation. That suggestion has been ignored completely by the Scottish Executive. It seems that the money will go straight to the Treasury. I am sure that all members are aware of the Royal Bank of Scotland's recent announcement of charitable help for students from Edinburgh, St Andrews, Glasgow and Dundee. Had the Executive accepted the Cubie report's recommendation, the bank's money could have gone straight into the graduate endowment scheme and all students in Scotland could have benefited from it.

Thank you very much, Mr Melville.

Thank you for your time.

I am sorry for the delays and the interruptions.

Pauline McNeill will be able to bring the committee up to speed. I am sure that, as an ex-president of the National Union of Students Scotland, she is very aware of the position.

I hope so.

As has been mentioned, the previous petition from Napier Students Association was passed to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, to be considered as part of its stage 1 consideration of the new Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Bill. It is suggested that the same should happen to this petition.

I agree.

I also agree, in the strongest possible terms. The case for the full implementation of the Cubie report was eloquently made. I would like the Executive to implement the report in full on behalf of the students of Scotland.

I do not think that any member of the committee would dissent from that.

It is probably easier for me to say it than it is for you, convener.